1 2025:CGHC:38100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 150 of 2020 1 - Smt. Dileshwari Verma And Another W/o Lovekush Verma Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village- Kirki, Tahsil- Thankhamharia, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Naitik Verma S/o Lovekush Verma Aged About 4 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Dileshwari Verma, Resident Of Village- Kirki, Tahsil- Thankhamharia, District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Lovekush Verma S/o Kanshi Verma Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 10 Dakshin, Dabra Para, Bhilai-3, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.206/2018, whereby the 2 learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that after one year of marriage, the respondent and his family members, including his parents, sister, and brother-in-law, Shashibhushan, started demanding dowry from applicant No.1. They would beat and harass her, alleging that she had not brought sufficient dowry, including a wardrobe, TV, sofa, and motorcycle. They would also demand daily necessities from her parental home and deny her food and other essentials, instead providing her with stale and leftover food. During her fourth pregnancy, the applicant No.1 was subjected to severe physical and mental abuse by the respondent. Her father was informed about the situation, and a social meeting was convened, where the respondent assured that he would treat her properly. However, he continued to taunt and harass her. On June 24, 2018, the applicant No.1 was beaten and thrown out of the house, and she has been living with her parents ever since. The applicant's child has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent on her father. On the other hand, the respondent works as a welding contractor at Bhilai Steel Plant, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. He also owns a house in Bhilai Dabra Para, which he rents out for Rs.5,000/- per month. Additionally, he owns approximately 5-6 acres of agricultural land in villages Kateleehathgudi, Kandei (Lodhi), and Kirki, generating an annual 3 income of Rs.5,00,000/-. Given the respondent's financial capacity, the applicant seeks a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- from him. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegation alleged by applicant No.1. The Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has granted maintenance to applicant No.2 as aforementioned. Hence, the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the first applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and, therefore, she is also entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. Furthermore, applicant No.1 is a lady and requires basic necessities like food, clothing, and other essentials for her livelihood. The respondent has deserted the applicants without any reasonable cause. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has a permanent source of income, owns a residential house, and earns rental income from it. Therefore, considering the current societal scenario, the maintenance awarded to the second applicant is liable to be suitably enhanced. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent subjected applicant No.1 to cruelty due to dowry demands and ultimately threw her out of the house, providing sufficient reason for applicant No.1 to live separately. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that it is an admitted fact that applicant No.1 is the wife of respondent and applicant No.2 is his son, therefore, son is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent, so far as applicant No.1 is concerned, dispute between the applicant and the respondent appears to be due to the sister-in-law, and there is no evidence of any physical or mental harassment by the respondent and his parents, despite respondent’s willingness to keep the applicants with him, they chose to live separately, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicant No.1 is living separately without sufficient reason and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil